DOCSLIB.ORG

Records of the Canterbury Museum Volume 34 2020

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Records of the Canterbury Museum Volume 34 2020 Records of the Canterbury Museum, 2020 Vol. 34: 85–94 85 A redescription of Philoponella congregabilis, an Australian hackled orb weaver spider (Uloboridae) now found in Christchurch, New Zealand Cor J Vink1,2,3 and Kate M Curtis1,3 1Canterbury Museum, Rolleston Avenue, Christchurch 8013, New Zealand 2Zoological Museum, Centre of Natural History, University of Hamburg, Martin-Luther-King-Platz 3, D-0146 Hamburg, Germany 3Department of Pest-management and Conservation, Lincoln University, Lincoln 7647, New Zealand Email: [email protected] Philoponella congregabilis (Rainbow, 1916), an Australian spider in the family Uloboridae, has recently established in Christchurch, New Zealand. The species is redescribed. It builds reduced, horizontal or sloping orb webs in low vegetation, on fences, under eaves and in outbuildings. The webs of different individuals can be interconnected. Philoponella congregabilis is found in eastern and southeastern Australia and its current New Zealand distribution is limited to the southern suburbs of Christchurch. Keywords: invasive spider, taxonomy, uloborid Introduction The Uloboridae include small spiders that are congregabilis (Rainbow, 1916) established unusual in that they do not have cheliceral itself in Christchurch and has now spread to a venom glands. Instead of envenomating number of localities in southern Christchurch. their prey, uloborids wrap their prey tightly Because the original and only description of with large amounts of silk, which breaks the P. congregabilis is not sufficient to identify cuticle (Eberhard et al. 2006). The spider then specimens with certainty, we redescribe P. regurgitates digestive enzymes over its prey congregabilis here. We also plot its current and feeds on the liquefied body (e.g. Weng et distribution in New Zealand so that any al. 2006). Most uloborids, including the genus further spread can be followed. Philoponella Mello-Leitão, 1917, construct small, reduced, cribellate orb webs and are Methods commonly known as hackled orb weavers. Uloborids can be mistaken for small members Specimens were collected from locations in of the orb weaving family Araneidae, but the south of Christchurch. In some cases can be differentiated by their cribellum and adults could not be found, so immature calamistrum (Figs 1–4). These structures are specimens were reared in the laboratory used to produce cribellate (hackled) webbing. until they moulted as adults. Specimens were Waitkera waitakerensis (Chamberlain, examined in 80% ethanol with a dissection 1946), found only in the North Island (Opell microscope. Female internal genitalia were 2006), used to be the only species in the excised using a sharp entomological needle family Uloboridae known from New Zealand. and cleared in lactic acid. All measurements That changed sometime before October 2014, are in millimetres (mm). Measurements of when the Australian species Philoponella the redescribed specimens were made using 86 Cor J Vink and Kate M Curtis Figure 1. Ventral view of the anterior of a male Figure 3. Ventral view of the anterior of a female Philoponella congregabilis (ZMH A0002084). Philoponella congregabilis (ZMH-A0002084). Abbreviations: ALS, anterior lateral spinneret; Abbreviations: ALS, anterior lateral spinneret; PLS, posterior lateral spinneret; PMS, posterior PLS, posterior lateral spinneret; PMS, posterior median spinneret median spinneret Figure 2. Hindleg IV of male Philoponella Figure 4. Hindleg IV of female Philoponella congregabilis (ZMH A0002084) showing the congregabilis (ZMH A0002084) showing the calamistrum on the dorsal surface of the calamistrum on the dorsal surface of the metatarsus metatarsus Nikon NIS Elements software and a Nikon and microscope examination for detail and DS-Ri1 camera attached to a Nikon AZ100M shading. Morphological nomenclature of the stereomicroscope. Carapace and body length pedipalp and the epigynum follows Opell measurements of multiple specimens were (1979). made with a micrometer ruler fitted to the Type specimens of P. congregabilis were eyepiece of a Leica MZ8 stereomicroscope. The loaned from the Australian Museum, Sydney, colouration description is given from specimens Australia, as the original illustrations by preserved in 80% ethanol. High resolution Rainbow (1916) were only lateral views of the images of specimens were produced by Nadine entire male and female specimens, therefore Dupérré at the Zoological Museum, Centre identification could not be certain. High of Natural History, University of Hamburg, quality images of the types of the other two using a BK Plus Lab System (Dun, Inc.) with Australian Philoponella species that are held integrated Canon camera, macro lens (65 mm) at the Zoological Museum, Centre of Natural and Zerene focus stacking software. Specimens History, University of Hamburg (ZMH), were were also illustrated by Nadine Dupérré who compared to P. congregabilis; a syntype male used digital photos to establish proportions and female of P. variabilis (Keyserling, 1887) A redescription of Philoponella congregabilis, an Australian hackled orb weaver spider 87 Figure 5. Left male pedipalp of Philoponella Figure 6. Left male pedipalp of Philoponella congregabilis, lateral view (ZMH A0002084). congregabilis, retrolateral view (ZMH Abbreviations: CBL, conductor basal lobe; CS, A0002084). Abbreviations: C, cymbium; CBL, conductor spike; FT, femoral tubercle; MAB, conductor basal lobe; CS, conductor spike; median apopysis bulb; MAS, median apophysis MAB, median apophysis bulb; MAS, median spur apophysis spur (ZMH A0002113) and the possible type of P. Other specimens examined: New Zealand: pantherina (Keyserling, 1890) (ZMH A09184). Christchurch: Hoon Hay, 43.5744°S, Specimens of P. congregabilis have been 172.6150°E, 18 Oct 2014, coll. M Provis, 1 male placed in the Canterbury Museum (CMNZ), (CMNZ 2020.94.1). Cashmere, 43.5627°S, Lincoln University Entomological Research 172.6372°E, on fence, 7 Nov 2016, coll. K M Museum (LUNZ), Museum of New Zealand Curtis, 2 males, 1 female (CMNZ 2020.94.2, Te Papa Tongarewa (MONZ), New Zealand 2020.94.3, 2020.94.8). Westmorland, Arthropod Collection (NZAC) and ZMH. 43.5825°S, 172.6057°E, outside greenhouse, 7 July 2019, coll. K M Curtis, collected as Taxonomy juveniles and reared in lab until adults, 1 male, 1 female (MONZ AS.004744); same Philoponella congregabilis (Rainbow, 1916) data, 3 males, 2 females (NZAC 03029409). Figures 1–16 Westmorland, 43.5825°S, 172.6057°E, in Uloborus congregabilis Rainbow 1916: 59, figs greenhouse, 23 July 2019, coll. K M Curtis, 1–2 (male and female). collected as juveniles and reared in lab until Philoponella congregabilis (Rainbow); Lehtinen adults, 2 males, 3 females (ZMH A0002084); 1967: 258 (transferred from Uloborus). same data, 1 male, 1 female (CMNZ 2020.94.4, 2020.94.5); same data, 1 male, 2 females Type specimens: Syntypes: 1 male and 3 females (LUNZ 00012949). Somerfield, 43.56265°S, (AM KS6766), 2 males and 4 females (AM 172.62785°E, in web in garden, 4 Nov 2019, KS9272), examined. Australia: New South coll. C J Vink, 1 female (CMNZ 2020.94.6). Wales: Parramatta, 11 Jan 1915, coll. A R Cashmere, 43.57547°S, 172.62914°E, in McCulloch. potting shed, 24 Nov 2019, coll. C J Vink & S J 88 Cor J Vink and Kate M Curtis Figure 7. Male Philoponella congregabilis, lateral view (ZMH A0002084) Crampton, 1 female (CMNZ 2020.94.7); same other uloborid found in New Zealand, by the data, 1 female and eggsac (CMNZ 2020.94.9). large dorsal projection on the anterior half of Huntsbury, 43.5643°S, 172.6508°E, under the abdomen in the former species (Figs 7 and deck, 17 Nov 2019, coll. K M Curtis, 1 female 8) and by the very different form of the male and an eggsac (CMNZ 2020.94.10). pedipalp (Figs 5 and 6) and female epigyne (Figs 9 and 10). Diagnosis: Philoponella congregabilis can be separated from other species in the genus Description: Male. Total length 2.95, carapace by the shape of the median apophysis bulb length 1.54, sternum length 0.92, abdomen (Fig. 5) and the well-developed conductor length 1.91, carapace width 1.46, sternum basal lobe (Fig. 6). The large dorsal projection width 0.69, and abdomen width 1.21. Leg I on the anterior half of the abdomen (Figs total length 7.41, length of articles: femur 2.28, 7 and 8) separates P. congregabilis from the patella 0.64, tibia 1.79, metatarsus 1.74, tarsus other two Australian Philoponella species, P. 0.96; leg II 3.77 (1.27, 0.47, 0.65, 0.86, 0.52); leg variabilis and P. pantherina. The gonopores III 2.73 (0.85, 0.30, 0.45, 0.67, 0.46); leg IV 4.69 of P. congregabilis (Fig. 8) are more anterior (1.36, 0.53, 0.97, 1.12, 0.71). Chelicerae length than those of P. variabilis and P. pantherina. 0.35 and chelicerae width 0.21. Carapace black- The median apophysis bulb is much smaller brown with sparse yellow-brown pubescence in P. congregabilis than it is in P. variabilis. and a longitudinal median strip of whitish Philoponella congregabilis can be separated setae (Fig. 11). Chelicerae, endites, labium from Waitkera waitakerensis, which is the only a dusky red with blackish tones, sternum A redescription of Philoponella congregabilis, an Australian hackled orb weaver spider 89 Figure 8. Female Philoponella congregabilis, lateral view (ZMH A0002084). Abbreviation: PER, posterior epigynal rim black-brown with cream setae (Fig. 12). and conductor spike with pointed tip (Fig. 5). Sternum brown with mostly white setae and Conductor blade well-developed (Fig. 6). some pale orange-brown setae (Fig. 12). Legs Female. Total length 4.90, carapace length pale orange-brown distally to black-brown 1.50, sternum length 1.02, abdomen length proximally. Legs with dark brown bands both 3.81, carapace width 1.27, sternum width 0.72, ventrally and dorsally; many segments with and abdomen width 2.03. Leg I total length light proximal bands and dark distal bands. 6.14, length of articles: femur 1.97, patella Calamistrum on dorsal surface of metatarsus 0.59, tibia 1.49, metatarsus 1.34, tarsus 0.75; IV (Fig.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Vol. 16, No. 2 Summer 1983 the GREAT LAKES ENTOMOLOGIST
    MARK F. O'BRIEN Vol. 16, No. 2 Summer 1983 THE GREAT LAKES ENTOMOLOGIST PUBLISHED BY THE MICHIGAN EN1"OMOLOGICAL SOCIErry THE GREAT LAKES ENTOMOLOGIST Published by the Michigan Entomological Society Volume 16 No.2 ISSN 0090-0222 TABLE OF CONTENTS Seasonal Flight Patterns of Hemiptera in a North Carolina Black Walnut Plantation. 7. Miridae. J. E. McPherson, B. C. Weber, and T. J. Henry ............................ 35 Effects of Various Split Developmental Photophases and Constant Light During Each 24 Hour Period on Adult Morphology in Thyanta calceata (Hemiptera: Pentatomidae) J. E. McPherson, T. E. Vogt, and S. M. Paskewitz .......................... 43 Buprestidae, Cerambycidae, and Scolytidae Associated with Successive Stages of Agrilus bilineatus (Coleoptera: Buprestidae) Infestation of Oaks in Wisconsin R. A. Haack, D. M. Benjamin, and K. D. Haack ............................ 47 A Pyralid Moth (Lepidoptera) as Pollinator of Blunt-leaf Orchid Edward G. Voss and Richard E. Riefner, Jr. ............................... 57 Checklist of American Uloboridae (Arachnida: Araneae) Brent D. Ope II ........................................................... 61 COVER ILLUSTRATION Blister beetles (Meloidae) feeding on Siberian pea-tree (Caragana arborescens). Photo­ graph by Louis F. Wilson, North Central Forest Experiment Station, USDA Forest Ser....ice. East Lansing, Michigan. THE MICHIGAN ENTOMOLOGICAL SOCIETY 1982-83 OFFICERS President Ronald J. Priest President-Elect Gary A. Dunn Executive Secretary M. C. Nielsen Journal Editor D. C. L. Gosling Newsletter Editor Louis F. Wilson The Michigan Entomological Society traces its origins to the old Detroit Entomological Society and was organized on 4 November 1954 to " ... promote the science ofentomology in all its branches and by all feasible means, and to advance cooperation and good fellowship among persons interested in entomology." The Society attempts to facilitate the exchange of ideas and information in both amateur and professional circles, and encourages the study of insects by youth.
    [Show full text]
  • Theridiidae): a Web That Is Not a Snare* B' William G
    ARG YRODES A TTENUA TUS (THERIDIIDAE): A WEB THAT IS NOT A SNARE* B' WILLIAM G. EBERIaARr) Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute and Escuela de Biologia, Universidad de Costa Rica, Ciudad Universitaria, Costa Rica INTRODUCTION Spiders of the large theridiid genus Argyrodes, whose natural history was reviewed by Exline and Levi (1962), seem to have generally abandoned the usual theridiid habit of spinning webs to capture insect prey. A few spin their own webs, but more often they live in the webs of other, larger web-building spiders where they remove prey from the host's web (e.g. Kullmann 1959, Vollrath 1978). The apparently kleptoparasitic species A. trigonum .(trigon- um species group) actually preys on its hosts on occasion. Argyrodes species in the Rhomphaea group have also been found feeding on web spiders, but some in circumstances which suggest a strict predator-prey relationship rather than kleptoparasitism. Exline and Levi (1962) note two observations of A. (R.)fictilium preying on web weavers although fictilium "often make small theridiid webs of their own". I have found an A. (R.)projiciens (O.P. Camb.) feeding on a Metazygia sp. which leaves its web up only during the night, thus making kleptoparasitism unlikely; the state of the prey's web indicated that it was attacked as it was building its web early in the evening. I have also seen an unidentified species feeding on an Araneus (?) sp., a species which leaves its web up only two to three hours in the early evening and then removes it completely. Clyne (1979) showed that a species from the Ariamnes group, Argyrodes colubrinus, uses still another tactic.
    [Show full text]
  • A Review of the Anti-Predator Devices of Spiders* Invaders Away Or Kill and Eat Them
    Bull. Br. arachnol. Soc. (1995) 10 (3), 81-96 81 A review of the anti-predator devices of spiders* invaders away or kill and eat them. The pirate spiders (Mimetidae) that have been studied feed almost J. L. Cloudsley-Thompson exclusively on other spiders, whilst certain Salticidae 10 Battishill Street, (Portia spp.) feed not only upon insects, but sometimes London Nl 1TE also on other jumping spiders, and even tackle large orb-weavers in their webs (see below). Several other Summary families and genera, including Archaeidae, Palpimanus (Palpimanidae), Argyrodes and Theridion (Theridiidae), The predators of spiders are mostly either about the and Chorizopes (Araneidae) contain species that include same size as their prey (arthropods) or much larger (vertebrates), against each of which different types of de- other spiders in their diet. Sexual cannibalism has been fence have evolved. Primary defences include anachoresis, reviewed by Elgar (1992). Other books in which the phenology, crypsis, protective resemblance and disguise, enemies of spiders are discussed include: Berland (1932), spines and warning coloration, mimicry (especially of ants), Bristowe (1958), Cloudsley-Thompson (1958, 1980), cocoons and retreats, barrier webs, web stabilimenta and Edmunds (1974), Gertsch (1949), Main (1976), Millot detritus, and communal webs. Secondary defences are flight, dropping to the ground, colour change and thanatosis, (1949), Preston-Mafham, R. & K. (1984), Savory (1928), web vibration, whirling and bouncing, autotomy, venoms Thomas (1953) and Wise (1993). (For earlier references, and defensive fluids, urticating setae, warning sounds and see Warburton, 1909). deimatic displays. The anti-predator adaptations of spiders The major predators of spiders fall into two cate- are extremely complex, and combinations of the devices gories: (a) those about the same size as their prey (mainly listed frequently occur.
    [Show full text]
  • The Supposed Giant Spider Mongolarachne Chaoyangensis, from the Cretaceous Yixian Formation of China, Is a Crayfish
    See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/336925980 The supposed giant spider Mongolarachne chaoyangensis, from the Cretaceous Yixian Formation of China, is a crayfish Article · October 2019 DOI: 10.11646/palaeoentomology.2.5.15 CITATIONS READS 0 456 6 authors, including: Paul A Selden Chungkun Shih University of Kansas Capital Normal University 202 PUBLICATIONS 3,396 CITATIONS 344 PUBLICATIONS 2,660 CITATIONS SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects: Fossil arthropods View project Evolution of wing colour patterns in fossil insects View project All content following this page was uploaded by Chungkun Shih on 25 December 2019. The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. Palaeoentomology 002 (5): 515–522 ISSN 2624-2826 (print edition) https://www.mapress.com/j/pe/ PALAEOENTOMOLOGY Copyright © 2019 Magnolia Press Article ISSN 2624-2834 (online edition) PE https://doi.org/10.11646/palaeoentomology.2.5.15 http://zoobank.org/urn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub:FD4260C9-09DA-45D1-8B83-58A6A4E372C6 The supposed giant spider Mongolarachne chaoyangensis, from the Cretaceous Yixian Formation of China, is a crayfish PAUL A. SELDEN1, 2, 3,*, ALISON N. OLCOTT2, matt R. DOWNEN2, DONG REN1, CHUNGKUN SHIH1, 4 & XIAODONG CHENG5 1College of Life Sciences, Capital Normal University, Beijing, 100048, China. 2Department of Geology, University of Kansas, 1475 Jayhawk Boulevard, Lawrence, Kansas 66045, USA. 3Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, UK. 4Department of Paleobiology, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC 20013-7012, USA. 5Dalian Natural History Museum, Dalian 116023, Liaoning, China.
    [Show full text]
  • A Protocol for Online Documentation of Spider Biodiversity Inventories Applied to a Mexican Tropical Wet Forest (Araneae, Araneomorphae)
    Zootaxa 4722 (3): 241–269 ISSN 1175-5326 (print edition) https://www.mapress.com/j/zt/ Article ZOOTAXA Copyright © 2020 Magnolia Press ISSN 1175-5334 (online edition) https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.4722.3.2 http://zoobank.org/urn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub:6AC6E70B-6E6A-4D46-9C8A-2260B929E471 A protocol for online documentation of spider biodiversity inventories applied to a Mexican tropical wet forest (Araneae, Araneomorphae) FERNANDO ÁLVAREZ-PADILLA1, 2, M. ANTONIO GALÁN-SÁNCHEZ1 & F. JAVIER SALGUEIRO- SEPÚLVEDA1 1Laboratorio de Aracnología, Facultad de Ciencias, Departamento de Biología Comparada, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Circuito Exterior s/n, Colonia Copilco el Bajo. C. P. 04510. Del. Coyoacán, Ciudad de México, México. E-mail: [email protected] 2Corresponding author Abstract Spider community inventories have relatively well-established standardized collecting protocols. Such protocols set rules for the orderly acquisition of samples to estimate community parameters and to establish comparisons between areas. These methods have been tested worldwide, providing useful data for inventory planning and optimal sampling allocation efforts. The taxonomic counterpart of biodiversity inventories has received considerably less attention. Species lists and their relative abundances are the only link between the community parameters resulting from a biotic inventory and the biology of the species that live there. However, this connection is lost or speculative at best for species only partially identified (e. g., to genus but not to species). This link is particularly important for diverse tropical regions were many taxa are undescribed or little known such as spiders. One approach to this problem has been the development of biodiversity inventory websites that document the morphology of the species with digital images organized as standard views.
    [Show full text]
  • A Summary List of Fossil Spiders
    A summary list of fossil spiders compiled by Jason A. Dunlop (Berlin), David Penney (Manchester) & Denise Jekel (Berlin) Suggested citation: Dunlop, J. A., Penney, D. & Jekel, D. 2010. A summary list of fossil spiders. In Platnick, N. I. (ed.) The world spider catalog, version 10.5. American Museum of Natural History, online at http://research.amnh.org/entomology/spiders/catalog/index.html Last udated: 10.12.2009 INTRODUCTION Fossil spiders have not been fully cataloged since Bonnet’s Bibliographia Araneorum and are not included in the current Catalog. Since Bonnet’s time there has been considerable progress in our understanding of the spider fossil record and numerous new taxa have been described. As part of a larger project to catalog the diversity of fossil arachnids and their relatives, our aim here is to offer a summary list of the known fossil spiders in their current systematic position; as a first step towards the eventual goal of combining fossil and Recent data within a single arachnological resource. To integrate our data as smoothly as possible with standards used for living spiders, our list follows the names and sequence of families adopted in the Catalog. For this reason some of the family groupings proposed in Wunderlich’s (2004, 2008) monographs of amber and copal spiders are not reflected here, and we encourage the reader to consult these studies for details and alternative opinions. Extinct families have been inserted in the position which we hope best reflects their probable affinities. Genus and species names were compiled from established lists and cross-referenced against the primary literature.
    [Show full text]
  • Tarantulas and Social Spiders
    Tarantulas and Social Spiders: A Tale of Sex and Silk by Jonathan Bull BSc (Hons) MSc ICL Thesis Presented to the Institute of Biology of The University of Nottingham in Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy The University of Nottingham May 2012 DEDICATION To my parents… …because they both said to dedicate it to the other… I dedicate it to both ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS First and foremost I would like to thank my supervisor Dr Sara Goodacre for her guidance and support. I am also hugely endebted to Dr Keith Spriggs who became my mentor in the field of RNA and without whom my understanding of the field would have been but a fraction of what it is now. Particular thanks go to Professor John Brookfield, an expert in the field of biological statistics and data retrieval. Likewise with Dr Susan Liddell for her proteomics assistance, a truly remarkable individual on par with Professor Brookfield in being able to simplify even the most complex techniques and analyses. Finally, I would really like to thank Janet Beccaloni for her time and resources at the Natural History Museum, London, permitting me access to the collections therein; ten years on and still a delight. Finally, amongst the greats, Alexander ‘Sasha’ Kondrashov… a true inspiration. I would also like to express my gratitude to those who, although may not have directly contributed, should not be forgotten due to their continued assistance and considerate nature: Dr Chris Wade (five straight hours of help was not uncommon!), Sue Buxton (direct to my bench creepy crawlies), Sheila Keeble (ventures and cleans where others dare not), Alice Young (read/checked my thesis and overcame her arachnophobia!) and all those in the Centre for Biomolecular Sciences.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix P SRE and Targeted Invertebrate Survey
    SRE and targeted invertebrate survey Phoenix Environmental Sciences, March 2010. Short-range Endemic and Targeted Invertebrate Baseline Surveys for the Roe Highway Extension Project. Unpublished report prepared for South Metro Connect, Perth, WA. ...........................................................................Appendix P SRE and targeted invertebrate survey ........................................................................... Short-range Endemic and Targeted Invertebrate Baseline Surveys for the Roe Highway Extension Project Prepared for South Metro Connect Final Report March 2010 Phoenix Environmental Sciences Pty Ltd 1 Short-range Endemic and Targeted Invertebrate Baseline Surveys for the Roe Highway Extension Project South Metro Connect Final Report Short-range Endemic and Targeted Invertebrate Baseline Surveys for the Roe Highway Extension Project Prepared for South Metro Connect Final Report Authors: Volker W. Framenau and Conor O’Neill Reviewers: Melanie White and Karen Crews Date: 8 March 2011 Submitted to: Jamie Shaw and Peter Magaro (South Metro Connect) © 2011 Phoenix Environmental Sciences Pty Ltd The information contained in this report is solely for the use of the Client for the purpose in which it has been prepared and Phoenix Environmental Sciences Pty Ltd accepts no responsibility for use beyond this purpose. Any person or organisation wishing to quote or reproduce any section of this report may only do so with the written permission of Phoenix Environmental Sciences Pty Ltd or South Metro Connect. Phoenix Environmental Sciences Pty Ltd 1/511 Wanneroo Road BALCATTA WA 6023 P: 08 9345 1608 F: 08 6313 0680 E: [email protected] Project code: 942-ROE-AEC-SRE Phoenix Environmental Sciences Pty Ltd i Short-range Endemic and Targeted Invertebrate Baseline Surveys for the Roe Highway Extension Project South Metro Connect Final Report Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Spiders 27 November-5 December 2018 Submitted: August 2019 Robert Raven
    Bush Blitz – Namadgi, ACT 27 Nov-5 Dec 2018 Namadgi, ACT Bush Blitz Spiders 27 November-5 December 2018 Submitted: August 2019 Robert Raven Nomenclature and taxonomy used in this report is consistent with: The Australian Faunal Directory (AFD) http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/abrs/online-resources/fauna/afd/home Page 1 of 12 Bush Blitz – Namadgi, ACT 27 Nov-5 Dec 2018 Contents Contents .................................................................................................................................. 2 List of contributors ................................................................................................................... 2 Abstract ................................................................................................................................... 4 1. Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 4 2. Methods .......................................................................................................................... 4 2.1 Site selection ............................................................................................................. 4 2.2 Survey techniques ..................................................................................................... 4 2.2.1 Methods used at standard survey sites ................................................................... 5 2.3 Identifying the collections .........................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • SA Spider Checklist
    REVIEW ZOOS' PRINT JOURNAL 22(2): 2551-2597 CHECKLIST OF SPIDERS (ARACHNIDA: ARANEAE) OF SOUTH ASIA INCLUDING THE 2006 UPDATE OF INDIAN SPIDER CHECKLIST Manju Siliwal 1 and Sanjay Molur 2,3 1,2 Wildlife Information & Liaison Development (WILD) Society, 3 Zoo Outreach Organisation (ZOO) 29-1, Bharathi Colony, Peelamedu, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu 641004, India Email: 1 [email protected]; 3 [email protected] ABSTRACT Thesaurus, (Vol. 1) in 1734 (Smith, 2001). Most of the spiders After one year since publication of the Indian Checklist, this is described during the British period from South Asia were by an attempt to provide a comprehensive checklist of spiders of foreigners based on the specimens deposited in different South Asia with eight countries - Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka. The European Museums. Indian checklist is also updated for 2006. The South Asian While the Indian checklist (Siliwal et al., 2005) is more spider list is also compiled following The World Spider Catalog accurate, the South Asian spider checklist is not critically by Platnick and other peer-reviewed publications since the last scrutinized due to lack of complete literature, but it gives an update. In total, 2299 species of spiders in 67 families have overview of species found in various South Asian countries, been reported from South Asia. There are 39 species included in this regions checklist that are not listed in the World Catalog gives the endemism of species and forms a basis for careful of Spiders. Taxonomic verification is recommended for 51 species. and participatory work by arachnologists in the region.
    [Show full text]
  • By Philoponella Vicina, Leuca Uge Mariana, and Nephila Cia Vipes (Araneae, Uloboridae and Tetragnathidae), and Their Phylogenetic Implications
    Eberhard, W. G . 1990 . Early stages of orb construction by Philoponella vicinia, Leucauge mariana, and Nephila clavipes (Araneae, Uloboridae and Tetragnathidae), and their phylogenetic implications . J . Arachnol ., 18 :205-234 . EARLY STAGES OF ORB CONSTRUCTION BY PHILOPONELLA VICINA, LEUCA UGE MARIANA, AND NEPHILA CIA VIPES (ARANEAE, ULOBORIDAE AND TETRAGNATHIDAE), AND THEIR PHYLOGENETIC IMPLICATIONS William G . Eberhard Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute and Escuela de Biologia, Universidad de Costa Rica Ciudad Universitaria, Costa Rica ABSTRACT The uloborid Philoponella vicina differs from the araneoids Nephila clavipes and Leucauge mariana in one movement made during frame construction, in the ordering of frame construction, in proto-hub removal, and in the highly ordered sequence of operations on adjacent radii just before proto-hub removal. Data from other uloborids suggest that all of these differences may distinguish orb weaving uloborids in general from orb weaving araneoids . N. clavipes differs from the other two species in the order of lines laid during frame construction, in the high variability in the details of frame construction, and in its failure to remove recently laid lines during exploration, radius construction, and frame construction . Frame construction behavior in all three species is more variable than previous reports indicated, and more variable than behavior in later stages of orb construction . In all three species earlier frame construction more often involves breaking lines already present in the web. Similarity between uloborid and araneoid frame construction is more likely to be due to a combination of constructional constraints and inheritance of ancient spinning patterns than previously realized ; it is not clear whether or not it constitutes a synapomorphy uniting the two groups .
    [Show full text]
  • Tapetosa, a New Monotypic Wolf Spider Genus from Western Australia (Araneae: Lycosidae: Lycosinae)
    Records of the Western Australian Museum 25: 309–314 (2009). Tapetosa, a new monotypic wolf spider genus from Western Australia (Araneae: Lycosidae: Lycosinae) Volker W. Framenau1, 2, Barbara York Main2, Mark S. Harvey1, 2, 3 and Julianne M. Waldock1 1Department of Terrestrial Zoology, Western Australian Museum, Locked Bag 49, Welshpool DC, Western Australia 6986, Australia. E-mail: [email protected] 2School of Animal Biology, University of Western Australia, Crawley, Western Australia 6009, Australia 3Research Associate, Division of Invertebrate Zoology, American Museum of Natural History, New York, USA; Research Associate, California Academy of Sciences, San Francisco, California, USA Abstract – A new monotypic Australian wolf spider genus, Tapetosa, with T. darwini as type species, is described for the ‘Carpet Wolf Spider’, which is known from granite outcrops in the southeastern Wheatbelt of Western Australia. Tapetosa belongs to the lycosid subfamily Lycosinae, but has a unique somatic morphology amongst wolf spiders, which is characterised by a dorso-ventrally flattened cephalothorax and abdomen associated with the spiders inhabiting narrow crevices under the granite sheets of rocky outcrops. The central tarsal claw is reduced and covered by extended scopulate setae probably facilitating movement on solid rocky surfaces. The tegulum of the male pedipalp carries a unique retrolateral protrusion. IntroductIon lack of adult specimens ensured that the Carpet Wolf Spider could not be assigned to any of the four The first mention of an undescribed wolf spider subfamilies of Lycosidae known from Australia, exclusively inhabiting crevices under the rock Artoriinae Framenau, 2007; Zoicinae Lehtinen & slabs on granite outcrops in southwestern Western Hippa, 1979; Venoniinae Lehtinen & Hippa, 1979, Australia was by Barbara York Main in her classic or Lycosinae Sundevall, 1833.
    [Show full text]